Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Abbas Ali And Another on 26 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BALWINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) NORTH-EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. : 210/2016
State Vs : Mohd. Abbas Ali & Anrs
FIR No. : 22/2012
U/s : 279/337/338 IPC and Section 302/304/201/34
IPC
PS : Khajuri Khas
CNR No. : DLNE010044292016
Date of Institution : 23.11.2016
Date of Judgment reserved on : 24.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 26.12.2025
Brief details of the case
A)Offence complained of : 279/337/338 IPC and Section
302/304/201/34 IPC
B)Name of the accused : (i) Md. Abbas Ali, S/o Late Sh. Ajmat
Ali, R/o H. No. 347, Aman Colony,
Kaila Bhatta, Ghaziabad, U.P.
(ii) Md. Anwar, S/o Late Sh. Babu, R/o
H.No. 218,Gali No. 3, Ziauddin Pur,
Delhi.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 1/49
Digitally signed
by BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:21:44 +0530
C) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
D) Final order : Convicted
JUDGMENT
The case of prosecution
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on receipt of a PCR call from one mobile phone bearing number 9868348082 and registered vide DD No. 36A dated 16.01.2012 regarding an incident of accident, ASI Sahab Singh alongwith Ct. Nareshveer reached at the place of accident i.e. Bhajanpura bus Stand, Wazirabad Road. However, neither any injured of the accident nor any offending vehicle involved in the accident was found at the spot. Thereafter, ASI Sahab Singh alongwith Ct. Naresh Veer visited GTB hospital as well as the General Hospital, however, no injured of any accident was found to be admitted there as well. Inquires were also made from Trauma Center, Civil Lines, however, no victim of accident was also found to be admitted there. The PCR call regarding the accident was accordingly kept pending so that if information regarding admission of any injured in any hospital is received, further, necessary action could be done. However, despite waiting, no information regarding admission of any injured in any hospital in the area was received through out the night.
2. On the next morning, ASI Sahab Singh contacted the caller of the PCR call namely Sh. Ram Kripal Yadav and alongwith his accompanying staff Ct. Nareshveer reached at his house and, thereafter, recorded his statement regarding the accident. In his statement, the complainant Sh. Ram Kripal Yadav has disclosed State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 2/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:21:52 +0530 the following facts.
ब्यान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर मय परिवार के साथ रहता हूँ। और दिल्ली पुलिस मे बतौर ASI तैनात हूँ तथा नई दिल्ली जोन PCR मे तैनात हूँ। और दिनांक 16-1-12 को समय करीब 8:00/8:15 बजे रात वजीराबाद रोड भजनपुरा बस स्टैण्ड के पास मौजूद था क्योकि मुझे वहांँ से कु छ फल खरीदने थे तभी मैंने देखा कि एक आदमी भजनपुरा की तरफ से खजूरी की तरफ जाने के लिए वजीराबाद रोड को पार कर रहा था उसी दौरान एक मारुति वैन (टैक्सी) No. DL-3C-T1413 बजीराबाद की तरफ से बहुत ही तेज रफ्तार से आ रही थी जिसने सडक पार करते हुए उस आदमी को टक्कर मार दी, टक्कर लगते ही वह आदमी टैक्सी के आगे वाले शीशे से टकराया और बम्फर उसके पैरो मे लगा जिससे वह व्यक्ति घायल होकर गिर पडा जो उसी समय वहा पर भीड इकट्ठा हो गयी टैक्सी चालक टैक्सी को स्टार्ट करके भागने की कोशिश करने लगा जो मैने पब्लिक की मदद से उस टैक्सी को रुकवाया और घायल व्यक्ति को उसी टैक्सी मे लिटा दिया और चालक को कहा कि इसे GTB Hospital ले जाओ क्योकि जब तक वहां PCR की गाड़ी नही आयी थी ड्राइवर की उम्र 22-23 साल के करीब है। यह accident टैक्सी चालक के अपनी टैक्सी उपरोक्त को बहुत तेज रफतारी, गफलत. लापरवाही व खरतनाक तरीके से चलाने की वजह से हुआ है। टैक्सी चालक को मैं सामने आने पर पहचान सकता हूँ उस टैक्सी चालक के खिलाफ कानूनी कार्यवाही की जावे आपने मेरे घर आकर मेरा ब्यान लिखा है। ब्यान पढ़ कर सुनाया है ब्यान सुन लिया ठीक है।
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 3/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:22:01
+0530
3. Accordingly, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the present case FIR for the commission of offences u/s 279/337 IPC was registered at PS Khajuri Khas.
4. After the registration of the case FIR, ASI Sahab Singh alongwith complainant reached at the place of accident and also prepared a site plan of the spot at his instance. Thereafter, on receipt of an information regarding the recovery of a dead body with injuries of accident in the area of PS Jyoti Nagar and its preservation in GTB hospital mortuary, ASI Sahab Singh alongwith complainant proceeded to GTB hospital mortuary, where the complainant identified the recovered dead body of the deceased as the victim of the accident. The information regarding the recovery of the dead body of the deceased was also shared with his family members and the victim was identified as Pradeep Rathor.
5. During the course of investigation, the details of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3CT-1413 were also got verified from the transport authority and it was found to be registered in the name of one Sh. Ankur Jain who in his reply to notice u/s 133 MV Act disclosed regarding sale of the said vehicle to one Lalit Kumar. Likewise, Sh. Lalit Kumar also disclosed regarding further sale of the vehicle to one Sh. Sachin Kumar who also revealed regarding further selling the same to one Abbas Ali (i.e. one of the accused in the present case). Thereafter, efforts were made to trace the offending vehicle as well as his driver and the last owner.
6. On 18.01.2012, offence u/s 304 IPC was also added to the case FIR and further investigation of the case was assigned to SI Dharam Singh. During the State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 4/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:22:10 +0530 course of the investigation, a postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was also got conducted at the GTB hospital mortuary. On 20.01.2012, the offending vehicle was recovered from the area of Old Mustaffabad, PS Gokulpuri while being found stationed in Street No. 16 in front of House. No. 200, G-Block belonging to accused Abbas Ali. Further, accused Abbas Ali was also apprehended from his house.
7. During inquires accused Abbas Ali, the owner of the vehicle disclosed that on the day of incident the vehicle was being driven by his driver Mohd. Anwar. He also made a disclosure statement that he was also informed about the accident by his driver Mohd. Anwar and that he alongwith accused driver had left the injured at an isolated place near a drain behind the wall of a garbage dumping yard and thereafter, they had also cleaned their clothes, the vehicle and had also removed the broken pieces of front glass of the vehicle from inside of the van in order to erase/destruct the evidence of the accident. Accused Abbas Ali was also formally arrested in the present case and broken pieces of front glass of the vehicle recovered at his instance from a drain/sewer were also seized. The driver of the vehicle i.e. accused Mohd. Anwar was also arrested at the instance of accused Abbas Ali and he also made a disclosure statement confessing to the crime. The documents of the offending vehicle were also seized and its mechanical inspection was also got conducted. The CDR record of the mobile phone of accused Abbas Ali was also obtained from the concerned telecom company. Further, appropriate application for TIP for accused Mohd. Anwar was also moved, however, he refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. The exhibits relating to the postmortem of the deceased were also seized and deposited in the malkahan. The postmortem report was also obtained from the concerned hospital.State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 5/49
Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:22:16 +0530
8. On the completion of the investigation, a formal charge-sheet for the commission of offences u/s 279/337/302/304/201/34 IPC against accused Mohd.
Anwar and for the commission of the offence u/s 302/304/201/34 IPC against accused Abbas Ali was filed before the court of Ld. Magistrate on 19.05.2016.
9. After the committal of the case to this Court, arguments on the point of charge were heard by the then Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.04.2017 a formal charge for the commission of offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC and Section 302/304/201/34 IPC against accused Mohd. Anwar and for the commission of offences u/s 302/304/201/34 IPC against accused Abbas Ali was framed for the purpose of trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
10. During prosecution evidence, in order to discharge its burden and prove its case against the accused, the prosecution has examined total 24 witnesses.
11. PW1 Sh. Ram Kripal is the complainant as well as the sole eye witness of the accident/incident.
12. PW2 Sh. Sunil Rathore and PW3 Sh. Sagar Rathore are the nephew of the deceased victim Pradeep Rathore who have deposed regarding identifying the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary of GTB hospital and receiving the same after the postmortem for its final rites.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 6/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:22:23
+0530
13. PW3 Sh. Sagar Rathore also deposed in the court that his uncle (deceased victim) used to run a rehdi of 'moth kachauri' in the gali outside their house which was situated on the main road itself. He deposed that on 16.01.2012, at about 08:00 pm, the deceased victim came back to his house and after taking the supplies again went back to his rehdi. At about 10:00 pm, they were informed by one majdoor (labour) that the deceased had met with an accident. Thereafter, they immediately went to the place where his uncle used to keep his rehdi, however, he was not found there. PW3 also deposed that on reaching there it also came to his knowledge that the person with whose vehicle the accident had taken place, had taken his uncle to the hospital. Thereafter, they also went to all the nearby hospitals to search for his uncle, however, he was not found anywhere. On the next day, they reported the matter to police. PW3 further deposed that the police officials informed them that they had received a call from PS Jyoti Nagar regarding the recovery of one dead body which was yet to be identified. Thereafter, they also went to PS Jyoti Nagar and came to know that the driver of the offending vehicle who had taken his uncle in his vehicle after the accident, instead of taking him to the hospital had thrown him at Kardampuri in the area of PS Jyoti Nagar. PW3 also admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that it had come to his knowledge through police officials that his uncle (victim) had met with an accident while crossing the road near Bhajanpura bus stand at Wazirabad road.
14. PW4 is Sh. Vijay Rathore, brother of the deceased victim and he has also simply deposed regarding identifying the dead body of deceased Pradeep Rathore in the mortuary of GTB hospital.
15. PW5 Sh. Ankur Jain, PW7 Sh. Lalit Kumar, PW8 Sh. Sachin Kumar are the State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 7/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:22:30 +0530 previous owners of the van/offending vehicle. All these witnesses have simply deposed that after the receipt of notice u/s 133 MV Act from the IO they had submitted their reply to the IO and had informed about him about the further sale of the vehicle to its subsequent purchaser. Further, PW8 Sachin Kumar also identified accused Abbas Ali as the same person to whom he had sold off and delivered the vehicle in question.
16. PW6 Sh. Amit Kumar is another public witness who has deposed that on 16.01.2012 at about 08:45 pm, he was present at bus stand of B-Block, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi and was talking to his senior on his mobile phone. In the meantime, one maruti van of white colour came and stopped near him. The driver of the vehicle came out and asked him to lend his mobile phone for making a call, however, PW6 refused. After some time, the said driver again came back to him and stating that there was an urgency again requested him to allow him to make a call from his mobile phone. Upon this, PW6 agreed and gave his mobile phone to the driver of the said Maruti Van who after making a call started talking with somebody while standing at some distance. PW6 also deposed that when he went near to him, the said driver again made a distance from him and after making the call, he returned the mobile phone to him. Thereafter, PW6 also went to his house. It was also deposed by PW6 that after reaching at his house while he was having tea, he received a phone call on his mobile phone and the caller asked him to get him talked to one Anwar. However, PW6 informed the caller that the said Anwar had met him on the road and presently, PW6 is at his house and thereafter, he disconnected the call. PW6 also identified the accused Mohd. Anwar as the same person who had made a call from his mobile phone.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 8/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:22:37
+0530
17. PW9 is SI Islamuddin who has deposed that on 17.01.2012 after the assignment of DD No. 10A by duty officer, he alongwith Ct. Ved Pal reached at the spot i.e. 'Kura Khatta' (garbage dumping yard) near Ganda nala behind Ambedkar college Kardampuri, Delhi. On reaching there, they found that one dead body of a male aged about 50 year was lying near the wall of 'Khatta'. Thereafter, the crime team was called to the spot and information regarding the recovery of dead body was also sent to SHO. After some time, the crime team also reached there and inspected the spot and also took photographs. Thereafter, the dead body was removed to GTB mortuary and was got preserved. After, returning to the PS, PW9 got the message regarding the recovery of dead body flashed in order to establish its identity. PW9 also deposed that ASI Ram Kripal (PW1) from PCR who had made 100 number call regarding the accident at Bhajanpura bus stand also came to the PS on the same day. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Ram Kripal went to GTB mortuary where ASI Ram Kripal identified the dead body of the deceased stating the deceased was the same person who had met with accident at Bhajanpura Bus stand. PW9 further deposed that he also verified the said fact from PS Khajuri Khas and also came to know about the registration of the present case FIR. PW9 also deposed that ASI Sahab Singh from PS Khajuri Khas also came to GTB mortuary and thereafter, he conducted the further proceedings.
18. PW10 is Ct. Sunil Kumar who has simply deposed regarding visiting the GTB hospital mortuary with IO ASI Sahab Singh and that after the postmortem of the deceased, the sealed parcels containing his viscera and cloth etc alongwith sample seals of the doctors concerned were collected by him and handed over to the IO. PW10 also deposed that after the postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to its relatives.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 9/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:22:47
+0530
19. PW11 is HC Nareshveer who deposed regarding accompanying the IO ASI Sahab Singh to the spot of accident after the receipt of DD No. 36A and on non- finding of the accidental vehicle and any injured of the incident, further visiting GTB hospital, SDN hospital and Trauma Center Civil Line in order to find any clue regarding the injured. PW11 also deposed that ASI Sahab Singh had contacted the caller of the PCR call and thereafter, they visited his house where ASI Sahab Singh recorded his statement and after preparing a rukka got the present case FIR registered through him. PW11 also deposed that after registration of the case FIR he returned to the spot alongwith the copy of the FIR and handed over the same to ASI Sahab Singh. He also testified that at the spot ASI Sahab received a phone call from PS Jyoti Nagar regarding the recovery of one dead body whereupon, he alongwith ASI Sahab Singh and complainant Ram Kripal Yadav proceeded to GTB hospital mortuary where complainant identified the dead body of the deceased as the same victim of the accident. PW11 also deposed regarding other proceedings conducted by ASI Sahab Singh in order to trace and recover the offending vehicle and service of notice u/s 133 Cr.P.C. upon the owner/sellers/purchasers of the vehicles.
20. PW12 is HC Zile Singh, the photographer of crime team and he has simply deposed regarding visiting the spot i.e. House No.200, Gali NO. 16, G-block, Old Mustaffabad from where the offending vehicle was recovered and taking of 8 photographs of the offending vehicle which are Ex. PW12/A-1 to A-8. The negatives are PW12/B-1 to B-8.
21. PW13 is Inspector U. Balashankaran, In-charge mobile crime team, North-
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 10/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:22:54
+0530
east District and he has also deposed regarding visiting the spot of recovery of vehicle at the request of the IO and inspecting the vehicle bearing No. DL-3CT-1413. The scene of crime report prepared by PW13 is Ex. 13/A. As per PW13, on inspection no incriminating evidence could be found inside the vehicle as the same was already washed and cleaned.
22. PW14 is Ct. Girdhari who has simply deposed that on 15.01.2013, on the instruction of IO he had deposited the exhibits in sealed condition with CFSL Hyderabad for expert opinion and till the time the exhibits remained in his custody, they were not tempered with in any manner.
23. PW15 is SI Mukesh Chauhan, the last IO of the case who simply deposed regarding the filing of the charge-sheet in the court on the completion of the investigation which was already completed by the previous IOs.
24. PW16 is SI Manohar Lal Dhayani who has deposed regarding conducting the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle at the request of the IO. The mechanical inspection report prepared by PW16 is Ex. PW16/A. As per PW16, the only damage reported by him on the vehicle was 'front headlight plastic cover damage. The vehicle was mechanically fit for road test'.
25. PW17 is ASI Jagroshani, the duty officer, who has proved the factum of registration of the case FIR on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Sahab Singh through Ct. Nareshveer. The copy of FIR is Ex. PW17/A and endorsement of PW17 on the rukka is PW17/B. State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 11/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:00 +0530
26. PW18 is SI Girish Chander who accompanied IO SI Dharam Singh during the course of investigation. PW18 has deposed regarding the recovery of the offending vehicle near House No. 200, Gali No. 16, Old Mustaffabad and its seizure by the IO. He also deposed regarding the inspection of the vehicle by the crime team at the spot and presence of some broken pieces of front glass (i.e. wind shield) inside the car. He also deposed regarding the arrest of accused Abbas Ali and recording of his disclosure statement regarding involvement in the crime, seizure of his clothes (which he was wearing at the day of the incident), broken pieces of front glass, documents of the offending vehicle i.e. form 29 and 30 and as well as the mobile phone produced by the said accused vide memos Ex. PW18/A to PW18/G. PW18 also deposed regarding the arrest of accused Mohd. Anwar at the instance of accused Abbas Ali from his house and recording of his disclosure statement and seizure of his clothes and mobile phone by the IO. PW18 also correctly identified all the case properties in the court.
27. PW19 is Dr. Arvind Kumar who simply identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shabarish Dharampal in order to prove the postmortem report of the deceased prepared by the said doctor since he had already left the services of the hospital. The postmortem report no. 88/2012 dated 18.01.2012 is Ex.PW19/A.
28. PW20 is SI Sahab Singh, the initial IO who had reached at the spot alongwith PW11 Ct. Naresh Veer after the receipt of DD No. 36A regarding the occurrence of an accident and he has also deposed regarding the proceedings conducted thereafter, such as visiting nearby hospitals to find any clue regarding the injured of the accident, meeting the caller/complainant Ram Kripal Yadav, recording his statement, getting the FIR registered through Ct. Naresh Veer, State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 12/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:06 +0530 preparation of the site plan at the instance of complainant, receiving of information regarding the recovery of the dead body from PS Jyoti Nagar, visiting GTB hospital mortuary alongwith the complainant and Ct. Naresh Veer, identification of the deceased by the complainant and issuance of notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owners of the offending vehicle, etc.
29. PW21 is SI Dharam Singh, the second IO of the case and he has also deposed regarding the proceedings conducted by him during the course of the investigation, such as, identification of the dead body of the deceased by his relatives, its postmortem, apprehension and arrest of accused Abbas Ali from his house on the intervening night of 19/20.01.2012 on the basis of secret information, the recovery of the offending vehicle and broken pieces of glass inside the same, inspection of the vehicle, seizure of documents of the vehicle and mobile phone of accused Abbas Ali as well as the arrest of accused Mohd. Anwar at his instance from his house and recording of their disclosure statements. PW21 also deposed regarding preparation of pointing out memo of the spot where the dead body was found at the instance of both the accused. PW21 also deposed regarding the collection of CDR record of mobile phone the accused as well as examining Sh. Amit/PW6 from whose mobile phone a call was made by accused Anwar to co- accused Abbas Ali. PW21 also deposed regarding seizure of the clothes of both the accused vide seizure memo PW18/C and 18/I. PW21 also identified all the case properties during his deposition in the court.
30. PW22 is Inspector Anuj Kumar, third IO of the case who has simply deposed that after the case file was assigned to him for further investigation, on 05.01.2013, he directed Ct. Girdhari to take the exhibits from MHCM for depositing the same State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 13/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:13 +0530 with CFSL Hyderabad and the same were accordingly, deposited by Ct. Girdhari.
31. PW23 is HC Ajay, the then MHCM, PS Khajuri Khas who produced Reg. No 19 and 21 in the court in order to prove the relevant entries no. 1454, 1455, 1456 pertaining to the deposit of the case property in malkhana and onward transmission to CFSL Hyderabad. The relevant entries are Ex. PW23/A (colly) and copy of Road acknowledgment letter and Road Certificate No. 97/21/12 and 117/21/13 are Ex. PW23/B to PW23/D.
32. PW24 is Inspector E.S. Yadav, In-charge mobile crime team, North-East, District and he has simply deposed that on 17.01.2012, after receiving a call from control room, he alongwith Ct. Sanjay and finger print proficient HC Surender Prasad reached at the spot of recovery of dead body and inspected the scene of crime. PW24 deposed that Ct. Sanjay had also taken the photographs of the spot from different angles.
33. As far as the main documentary evidence is concerned, the same is as follows:
(i) DD No. 36A dated 16.01.2012 PS Khajuri Khas regarding occurrence of accident at Bhajanpura Bus Stand is Ex. PW20/A.
(ii) Police complaint/statement of complainant is Ex. PW1/A.
(iii) Copy of FIR is Ex. PW17/A.
(iv) Site plan of the spot of the accident is Ex. PW1/B.
(v) DD No. 10A dated 17.01.2012 PS Jyoti Nagar regarding recovery of an unclaimed dead body is Ex. PW9/A.
(vi) Body identification memos exhibited as Ex. PW2/A, PW3/A, PW3/B. State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 14/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:21 +0530
(vii) Postmortem Report is Ex. PW19/A.
(viii) Scene of crime visitation report of place of recovery of vehicle is Ex. PW13/A.
(ix) Seizure Memo of recovered offending vehicle is Ex. PW18/E.
(x) Seizure memo of form no. 29 and 30 is Ex.PW18/F.
(xi) Seizure memo of broken pieces of front galss of offending vehicle is Ex. PW18/D.
(xii) Seizure memo of mobile phone of accused Abbas Ali PW18/B.
(xiii) Mechanical inspection of report of the offending vehicle is Ex. PW21/F.
(xiv) Scene of crime visitation report of place of recovery of dead body PW24/A.
(xv) Notices u/s 133 MV Act issued to PW5 Ankur Jain, PW6 Lalit Kumar and PW8 Sachin Kumar and their replies to the said notices are Ex. PW5/A, PW6/A and PW8/A respectively.
(xvi) Notice u/s 133 MV Act issued to accused Abbas Ali alongwith his reply is Ex. PW21/C. (xvii) Pointing out memo of place of recovery of dead body prepared at the isntace of both the accused is Ex. PWPW18/A. (xviii) CDR record of mobile number 8744928626 belonging of accused Mohd. Abbas Ali is Mark PW21/E. (xix) Driving license of accused Mohd. Anwar is Ex. A-1.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 313 Cr.PC
34. On the completion of prosecution evidence, an examination of both the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC was also conducted. During their examination, both the accused persons denied all the allegations leveled against State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 15/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:26 +0530 them and claimed their innocence stating that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. No evidence was, however, led by any of the accused in their defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/ SUBMISSIONS
35. I have already heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defense counsels during the course of final arguments at length and have also duly gone through the entire case file and material available on record very carefully.
36. During the course of final arguments, while arguing on behalf of the state, the Ld. Addl. PP for the state has argued that in view of the consistent and unimpeachable testimony of PW1/complainant of the case which is also equally supported by the other prosecution witnesses, the case of the prosecution for the commission of all the alleged offences by both the accused stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
37. It is argued that PW1 Sh. Ram Kripal Yadav who is an eye-witness of the incident has categorically deposed that on the day of the incident when he was returning from his office and at about 08:00-08:20 pm was present at Wazirabad road, Bhajanpura Bus stand, he saw that the offending vehicle No. DL-3CT-1413 which was going towards Gokulpuri to Khajuri Khas and was being driven by accused Mohd. Anwar in a rash and negligent manner had hit the deceased victim who was crossing the road from Bhajanpura side to Khajuri. He also deposed that due to the collision the deceased victim sustained injuries on his person and fell State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 16/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:32 +0530 down on the road and, thereafter, he alongwith other public persons put the injured in the same offending vehicle and asked its driver/accused to get him admitted in GTB hospital and thereafter, the accused after taking the injured in his vehicle left to the hospital. PW1 also deposed that after the accident he had also made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone.
38. It is also submitted that PW1 has also corroborated that on the next day, he was contacted by the IO of the case on his mobile phone who also visited his house and recorded his statement regarding the accident. He also corroborated that he visited the spot of the accident with the IO and a site plan of the spot was also prepared by the IO at his instance. Likewise PW1 also corroborated the factum of visiting the mortuary of GTB hospital and identifying the dead body of the deceased as the same injured who was hit by the offending vehicle.
39. It is also argued that similarly, PW1 has also corroborated the fact that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into accident and that after accident the injured had struck against the front glass of his maruti van and bumper of the van hit on his legs and due to the collision injured had fallen down on the road. PW1 also corroborated that after the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had also tried to run away from the spot, however, he got the offending vehicle stopped with the help of other public persons and also shifted the injured into the same for the purpose of being taken to GTB hospital for immediate medical aid.
40. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the testimony of PW1 is as such in full conformity and consistency with his previous State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 17/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:37 +0530 statement/police complaint EX.PW1/A. It is also argued that likewise the defence has also not being able to point out any material discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of PW1 during his cross-examination which may cast any doubt of shadow over the credibility of his version.
41. The Ld. Addl. PP for the state has further argued that likewise the other remaining prosecution witnesses have also fully supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution.
42 It is submitted that the factum of the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from an isolated place also stands sufficiently proved in view of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses specially PW9 SI Islamuddin, who had reached at the place of recovery of the dead body pursuant to DD No. 10A dated 20.01.2012 regarding recovery of an unknown dead body, and also PW24 Inspector E.S. Yadav who had inspected the spot of the said recovery and both the said witness have duly testified and corroborated the factum of the presence/recovery of the dead body of the deceased near/behind the wall of garbage dumping yard near a drain.
43. It is stated that further, the postmortem report of the deceased victim Ex. PW19/A also sufficiently discloses that the victim had sustained a number of injuries and that the cause of his death was also shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries to head, chest, pelvis and other vital parts of his body and associated blood vessels produced by blunt force impact, which also sufficiently proves that the victim had met with an accident and was seriously injured.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 18/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:23:43
+0530
44. It is argued that similarly, the fact that both the accused were regularly and constantly connected with each other during the incident and helped each other in erasing/destructing the evidence of accident also stands sufficiently proved in view of CDR record pertaining to the mobile phone of accused Abbas Ali Mark PW21/E. Further the said fact also stands duly established in view of testimony of PW6 Amit Kumar who has also corroborated the factum regarding making of a call by accused Mohd. Anwar after borrowing his mobile phone as well as the receipt of a call from the mobile of accused Abbas Ali who asked him to get him talked to Mohd. Anwar. It is also submitted that similarly the fact that since the vehicle in question was also recovered just outside the house of the accused Abbas, the complicity of both the accused in the removal/dumping of the injured and thereafter of erasing the evidence regarding the presence of injured in the van and other evidence relating to his critical condition such as blood spots etc. also stands duly proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
45. It is argued that further the manner in which both the accused left the victim at an isolated place behind the wall of a garbage dumping yard which can not be normally expected to be visited by passerbyes that too at the time of late night and during peak winter season despite fully knowing that the victim was seriously injured and if the immediate medical assistance is not provided to him, he may also die due to the existing injuries, however, they still did not bother to take him to the hospital and left him to die, further sufficiently proves the required intention as well as knowledge on their part to prove the commission of offence of murder made punishable under section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.
46. Hence, it is argued that the case of the prosecution for the commission of all State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 19/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:48 +0530 the alleged offences u/s 279/337/338/302/201/34 IPC against accused Mohd. Anwar and for the commission of offences u/s 302/201/34 IPC against the accused Abbas Ali stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore it is prayed that they may be convicted for the said offences.
47. On the other hand, while arguing on behalf of the accused Mohd. Anwar, it has been argued by his Ld. Defence counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the commission of any of the alleged offences.
48. It is argued that PW1/complainant of the case who is the only eye-witness of the alleged accident is completely unreliable witness. It is argued that PW1 who was a police official and allegedly present at the spot of accident has acted in a very strange and abnormal fashion at the time of the alleged incident which per-se renders him completely unreliable witness and also raises doubts on his very claim of being an eye-witness to the alleged accident.
49. It is submitted that as per the own version of PW20 SI Sahab Singh and PW11 HC Nareshvir when after the receipt of DD No. 36A regarding the occurrence of the accident, they had visited the spot in question neither the injured and offending vehicle nor the complainant/caller of the PCR call was found present at spot though as per their statements during cross-examination they had reached at the place of occurrence just immediately after the receipt of DD No. 36A indicating that they also had reached there within 10-15 minutes of the PCR call.
50. It is argued that the very fact that after the assignment of DD No. 36A, when State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 20/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:23:54 +0530 PW20 and PW21 reached at the spot but they did not find PW1/complainant present there, the same itself reveals that PW1 is a completely planted witness and did not witness the alleged incident as is claimed by him.
51. It is argued that further the fact that despite being a police official, PW1 did not bother to render proper help to the injured and did not sit with him in the alleged offending vehicle so as to ensure that he actually reaches the hospital for his treatment, further cast serious doubt regarding his presence at the spot and as well as over his claim of being an eye-witness to the incident.
52. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that moreover, the testimony of PW1 also does not prove that the alleged accident also took place only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused as except stating in his police complaint Ex. PW1/A that the offending vehicle was at fast speed and deposing during his examination in the court that the driver of the vehicle was driving it in a rash and negligent manner, nothing is disclosed by PW1 as to how the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent in his driving.
53. It is argued that as per the site plan Ex. PW1/B the place of the incident is shown as just close to the divider of the main Wazirabad road which was going towards Gokulpuri to Khajuri Khas. Further the site plan also reveals that there was no permissible pedestrian crossing/zebra path near the spot of the accident for the pedestrian to cross over the road. It is stated that PW20 during his cross- examination also deposed that there was a small railing on the divider of the road (though not shown in the site plan) which further indicates that there was no permitted place on the road at or near the spot of accident for the pedestrians to State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 21/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:00 +0530 cross over the road.
54. It is argued that in view of the abovesaid position of the spot in question and the testimony of PW1 that the accident in question took place when the deceased was trying to cross over the road from Bhajanpura side towards Khajuri Khas, the same itself proves that the accident in question, if at all, took place, the same took place only due to the own fault of the deceased who was completely negligent in crossing the road from a place/spot from where crossing was not permitted, however, he still took that risk and allegedly got hit with the offending vehicle.
55. It is argued that similarly for want of serious defects in the site plan as no railing is shown on the divider of the road, a serious doubt also crept in regarding the credibility of the site plan as well the identity/location of the spot in question.
56. The Ld. Counsel had further submitted that likewise, since except PW1 there is no other public witness to the factum of the alleged accident and shifting of the injured into the alleged offending vehicle, the testimony of PW1 is also not reliable on such aspect and there remains a serious doubt that whether accused Mohd Anwar was the driver of the alleged vehicle and the injured was also shifted into the same post the alleged accident or not ?
57. It is stated that similarly since the very perusal of the testimony of PW1 reveals that the injured was shifted into the offending vehicle post the incident with the help of the public person present at the spot, however, no such public person was found present at the spot by PW20 and PW11 after their arrival nor any such public witness was also joined during the course of entire investigation, the same is State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 22/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:06 +0530 also fatal for the case of the prosecution.
58. The Ld. Counsel further submits that similarly, there is also no eye-witness to the alleged dropping/dumping of the witness at the spot in question from where his dead body was allegedly recovered by the police officials of PS Jyoti Nagar. It is argued that moreover, a simple act of abandoning an injured, even otherwise does not prove the required ingredients for the commission of an offence u/s 302/304 IPC as mere abandoning of an injured and not providing him immediate medical assistance, howsoever, cruel or immoral it may be, cannot amount to an offence u/s 302/304 IPC.
59. The Ld. Counsel further submits that moreover, the investigation conducted in the present is also full of serious defects and infirmities. It is argued that PW21, in his cross-examination deposed that it was the secret informer who had informed him about the vehicle number of the offending vehicle and the presence of the accused person and he had not conducted any investigation from the registering authority regarding ownership of the vehicle. He also deposed that he had seen the registration certificate recovered at the instance of accused persons and the registered owner of the vehicle was someone else.
60. It is argued that similarly, there are other serious defects in the investigation conducted by PW20. It is stated that the date of alleged incident is 16.01.2012. However, very strangely all the notices u/s 133 MV Act dated 17.01.2012 (Ex. PW5/A, PW6/A and PW8/A) are shown to be served upon PW5, PW7 and PW8 on 17.01.2012 itself and the reply of PW5, PW7 and PW8 was also received on the same date. It is also submitted that the similarly the perusal of the said notices u/s State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 23/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:12 +0530 133 MV Act where the date of appearance to answer the notice is mentioned as 16.01.2012, itself exposes the credibility of such documents and per se reveals that the same were falsely prepared and are not the credible documents.
61. It is argued similarly the fact that the ownership of co-accused Mohd. Abbas Ali over the offending vehicle in question as well as the employment of accused Mohd. Anwar as his driver is also not proved by the prosecution, it has completely failed to link the accused Mohd. Anwar with the alleged vehicle as well as incident.
62. It is submitted that similarly the testimony of PW6 also does not prove anything incriminating against the accused and does not prove him to be the driver of the offending vehicle. It is stated that PW6 has neither deposed regarding the registration number of the Maruti van in which the accused had come at the alleged place where PW6 was present nor he has deposed anything regarding the accident in question or the conversation which allegedly happened between both the accused over the phone. It is stated that similarly the CDR record pertaining to the mobile phone number accused Abbas Ali also does not prove that the alleged call between accused Mohd. Anwar through the mobile phone of PW6 and accused Abbas Ali was only in relation to the accident in question.
63. It is further argued that similarly, for the other serious defects in the investigation relating to non sending of the alleged broken glass pieces to the FSL to prove that the same actually belonged to the offending vehicle, discrepancies in the testimony of PW18 and PW21 in their cross-examination regarding the presence of the said broken glass pieces i.e. whether they were seized from the State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 24/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:17 +0530 inside of the vehicle or from drain/sewer near the vehicle, inordinate delay in recording the statement of the complainant/PW1 and registration of the case FIR and absence of any forensic evidence to prove the presence of the accused and injured in the offending vehicle, also cast serious doubt in the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is prayed that accused Mohd. Anwar may be acquitted of all the alleged offences.
64. Similarly, while arguing on behalf of accused Mohd. Abbas Ali, his Ld. Counsel has also prayed for his acquittal stating that neither the ownership of the offending vehicle with accused Abbas Ali nor any of his involvement in the commission of alleged offences is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
65. It is argued form no. 29 and 30 (Mark A1 and Mark A2) allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Abbas Ali does not per-se prove that he was the owner of the vehicle in question as the alleged documents were also only prepared by one PW8 Sachin Kumar and does not bear the signtures of accused Abbas Ali. Further PW8 also admitted during his cross-examination that the same were not signed by accused Mohd. Abbas Ali in his presence which itself renders the said documents highly doubtful and cannot be relied upon to presume the sale and transfer of the vehicle by PW8 to the accused.
66. It is further submitted that similarly, the testimony of PW6 as well as the alleged CDR record pertaining to the mobile phone number of accused also does not per-se prove that the alleged conversation between accused Mohd. Abbas Ali and Mohd. Anwar was only in relation to the accident in question.State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 25/49
Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:23 +0530
67. It is further submitted that since the alleged recovery of the offending vehicle from a street outside the house of accused Mohd. Abbas Ali is also not reliable for want of any independent public witness, the same can also not be relied upon to presume the role and involvement of the accused behind the commission of any alleged incident.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
68. In the present case, both the accused Mohd. Anwar and Mohd Abbas Ali are being tried for the commission of offences u/s 302/304/201/34 IPC. Further accused Mohd. Anwar is also being additionally tried for the commission of offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC. Thus in order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution is required to prove the commission of the abovesaid offences by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
69. Now the court shall proceed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in order to find out whether the prosecution has been able to discharge its burden to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts or not?
70. In the present case as apparent from the record, there is only one eye-witness of the alleged incident i.e. PW1 Sh. Ram Kripal Yadav.
71 . During his examination in the court, while deposing about the incident PW1 has deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 17.01.2012 he was posted in Delhi Police as ASI in PCR Delhi Zone and was residing at H. No. F-160A, Gali No.10, State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 26/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:29 +0530 30 Foota Road, Khajuri Khas, Delhi. At about 8-8.20 PM, when he was present at Wazirabad Road, Bhajanpura Bus Stand as he was returning to his house after finishing his duty, he saw that one Maruti Van which was going towards Gokul Puri to Khajuri Khas, Delhi hit one person who was crossing the road at that time from Bhajanpura side to Khajuri. PW1 also deposed that the driver of the Maruti van was driving the van in a rash and negligent manner. After hitting the said person, the maruti van was stopped by its driver and many public persons gathered there. PW1 deposed that the person who was hit with the vehicle sustained injuries on his person. Thereafter PW1 along with other public persons made the injured sit in the same Maruti van and asked its driver to get him admitted in GTB hospital.
Thereafter, the driver of the said Maruti Van took the injured in his Maruti van and left to the hospital.
72. PW1 also disclosed the registration number of the said Maruti Van as DL-3CT-1413 and also identified accused Mohd. Anwar as driver of the said van. He also testified that after the accident, he had also made a phone call at 100 number from his mobile phone.
73. PW1 further corroborated that on the next day, IO of the present case contacted him on his mobile phone and also visited his house and recorded his statement. PW1 also proved his police complainant Ex. PW/A by admitting his signatures thereon. PW1 further deposed regarding visiting the spot of accident alongwith IO/PW20 and PW11 and preparing of a site plan by the IO at his instance and thereafter, visiting Mortuary of GTB Hospital and identifying the dead body of the injured of the accident.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 27/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.26 17:24:37 +0530
74. During his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW1 also admitted that the accident in question took place on 16.01.2012 and that the offending vehicle/maruti van was coming from the side of Wazirabad and during the accident, the injured had struck against the front side glass of the maruti van and the bumper of the van was hit on his legs. He also admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Addl. PP to be correct that after the accident the injured had fallen on the road and the driver of the vehicle had tried to run away after leaving the injured at the spot and that he had got the vehicle stopped with the help of other public persons.
75. It is also relevant to note here that even during his cross-examination PW1 has remained consistent on his previous version regarding the occurrence of the incident in question and he also denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that at the time of incident there was fog. He also deposed that he saw the offending vehicle while coming in a rash and negligent manner from a distance of 20-25 steps and that he had seen the whole incident. He also deposed that he had made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone number 9868348082. PW1 also denied all the suggestion of the Ld. Defence counsel that he had never shown the place of the incident to the IO or that no site plan was prepared at his instance. Likewise, he also denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence counsel that the accident did not take place with vehicle number DL-3CT-1413 and the accused Mohd. Anwar was not driving the same at the time of accident.
76. Thus, the perusal of the entire testimony of PW1 reveals that the witness has remained completely consistent in all his statements regarding the occurrence of the accident in question. The witness has clearly deposed witnessing the incident at State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 28/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:45 +0530 the spot in question and the manner in which the accident took place and that, thereafter, the injured was also shifted into the same vehicle. PW1 has clearly mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle in his police complaint and the same number was again disclosed by him during his court testimony. Likewise, he also identified accused Mohd. Anwar as the driver of the said vehicle on the day of the incident.
77. It is relevant to mention here that during the course of the investigation, for the purpose of identification of accused Mohd. Anwar as driver of the vehicle when his TIP proceedings were conducted before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, he himself refused to participate in the said proceedings stating that he was brought to the court for the first time in muffled face and there is a possibility of him being seen by the witness/complainant.
78. As such though during the course of investigation, accused Mohd. Anwar could not be identified by PW1 for his refusal to participate in TIP proceedings, however, during the recording of his testimony in the court PW1 has correctly identified him as the driver of the maruti van which was involved in the accident. PW1 has also denied all the suggestion of the Ld. Defence counsel that accused Mohd. Anwar is not the driver of the said Maruti Van. Admittedly, there is also no suggestion of the defence during his cross-examination that PW1 was having any enmity or ill will or any sort of prior acquaintance with the accused so as to falsely identify him.
79. It is relevant to note here that PW6 Sh. Amit Kumar has also deposed in the court that on the same day of incident, he had also seen the present accused present State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 29/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:24:51 +0530 with a white colour maruti van when at about 08:45 pm PW6 was present at bus stand of B-block, Yamuna Vihar Delhi and the accused had reached there in the said maruti van and had requested him to lend him his mobile phone for making a call ( which also strangely was made to co-accused Abbas Ali only as per CDR record Mark PW21/E). Though PW6 did not mention the registration number of the maruti van in which accused Mohd. Anwar had reached at the place where PW6 had seen him, however, PW6 has also corroborated the fact on 16.01.2012 at about 08:45 pm and just few minutes after the accident in question (which as per the version of PW1 took place around 08-08:20 pm on 16.01.2012) the accused was seen driving one maruti van of white colour which further goes on to suggest that it was the same vehicle.
80. Further, the accused has also not led any evidence to show that he was plying some other Maruti van and not the offending vehicle and that the said other Maruti van only was seen by PW6. Moreover, the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle Ex. PW16/A showing the presence of damage over front headlight plastic cover also sufficiently links it to the accident in question.
81. Similarly, though, during his examination u/sec.313 Cr.P.C, accused Mohd. Anwar denied meeting PW6 on 16.01.2012 B-block bus stand, Yamuna Vihar and asking him for his mobile phone for making a call, however, the CDR record placed on record Mark 21E which reveals the exchange of calls between mobile number 8010419592 (registered in the name of PW6) and mobile number 8744928626 (registered in the name of accused Abbas Ali) further establish the said fact.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 30/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:24:58
+0530
82. Thus, as far as the identity of the offending vehicle involved in the accident and of his driver is concerned, in view of the consistent and unimpeachable testimony of PW1 (which is also equally supported by PW6), there remains no doubt that it was the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-3CT-1413 which was involved in the incident and it was accused Mohd. Anwar who was driving the same on the day of accident.
83. However, as far as the reason behind the occurrence of the accident is concerned, the court is also required see whether the accident in question actually took place only due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused Mohd. Anwar or not?
84. To find answer to this question, the court shall again revert back to the testimony of PW1. It is relevant to note here that in his police complaint Ex. PW1/A while narrating about the incident, it was mentioned by PW1 that the accident took place since the offending vehicle was coming at a very high speed and it had hit the deceased who was crossing the road from Bhajanpura towards Khajuri Khas. However, while narrating about the incident during his court testimony, PW1 deposed that the vehicle had hit the injured, since, its driver was driving it in a rash and negligent manner. The witness in his deposition, however, did not mention that the vehicle was at a high speed.
85. It is relevant to note here neither during his examination in chief nor during his cross examination by the defence, any question was put to PW1 in order to know how the driver of the vehicle was actually rash and negligent in his driving. Neither, the manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the accused is State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 31/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:25:05 +0530 disclosed or mentioned by the witness nor any other details regarding the traffic conditions of the road at the relevant time of accident were provided by PW1.
86. It is relevant to note here that on the contrary the testimony of PW11 and PW20, who had reached at the spot on the receipt of PCR call regarding the accident reveals that during their cross examination both the witnesses have deposed that at around 08:30 PM there used to be a continuous vehicular movement and heavy traffic at Wazirabad Road.
87. Further, it is also relevant to note here that as per the site plan Ex. PW2/B there is also no permitted Zebra path/Pedestrian crossing available at the spot where the accident in question took place when the deceased injured was trying to cross the road. Further, the site plan also clearly establish that the spot of accident which is shown at Point-X in the site plan was just close to the divider.
88. As such for want of the complete details regarding the manner of driving of the offending vehicle and other traffic conditions of the road as well as the own contributory negligence of the deceased/injured who was crossing the road from a non- permitted spot as there was no pedestrian crossing/Zebra path, it cannot be said that the accident in question took place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused driver.
89. Now proceeding further, since the prosecution story does not end only at the occurrence of the accident, but the accusations are that the injured was also shifted into the offending vehicle after the accident for the purpose of taking him to the hospital, however, the accused driver instead of taking him to the hospital and State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 32/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:25:12 +0530 getting him admitted there, dumped/abandoned him at an isolated place so that he could not be noticed by anyone with intent to conceal/destruct the evidence of accident and due to the said act, the injured was deliberately prevented from receiving immediate medical treatment/aid leading to his unfortunate death, it is also required to be seen that whether the prosecution has proved the commission of the said acts by the accused driver beyond all reasonable doubt or not.
90. Further since, accused Mohd. Abbas Ali has also been charged for the commission of offences u/s 302/304/201 IPC, it is also required to be seen whether the prosecution has also been able to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Abbas Ali was also involved in dumping/abandoning of the injured at the said place in order to the erase/destruct the evidence relating to the accident.
91. In order to find answer to the above questions, the court shall again revert to the testimony of PW1. Further, the testimonies of PW9 Ishlamuddin and PW24 are also relevant to be taken into consideration.
92. As it is already observed above, the testimony of PW1 is completely coherent, consistent and reliable to reach the finding that the offending vehicle DL-3CT-1413 was actually involved in the accident and accused Mohd. Anwar was the driver of the said vehicle at the relevant time of incident. Further, the testimony of PW1 is also completely reliable to believe and come to the finding that the injured after the accident was also shifted into the offending vehicle. Thus, the testimony of PW1 is as such completely reliable to reach to the conclusion that the victim/deceased was lastly seen with the accused Mohd. Anwar when he was shifted into his offending vehicle for the purpose of being taken to GTB Hospital State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 33/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:25:19 +0530 for his treatment/immediate medical aid.
93. Now, as far as, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased is concerned the factum of such recovery also stands duly established and proved in view of the testimony of PW9 Ishlamuddin who alongwith Ct. Vedpal had reached at the place of recovery of the dead body i.e. Kura Khatta (garbage dumping yard) near Ganda Nala behind Ambedkar College, Kardampuri, Delhi, and has deposed in the court that after the assignment of DD No. 10A regarding the receipt of an information of an unclaimed dead body when he had reached there, the dead body of the deceased victim was found lying there with injuries of accident.
94. Similarly, the factum of recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the spot of its recovery also stands duly proved in view of testimony of PW24 who has also deposed regarding conducting the inspection of the spot of the said recovery as well as finding of the dead body of the deceased. The scene of crime visitation report prepared by PW24 is already Ex. PW24/A.
95. As apparent from the record and discussion above, the prosecution has clearly proved beyond all reasonaable doubts till this stage that the accident in question took place with offending vehicle DL-3CT-1413, accused Mohd. Anwar was driving the said vehcile at the releavnt time of accident and that the injured was also shifted into the same vehicle after the incident for being taken to the hospital and that on 18.01.2012 at about 08:13 am, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from Kura Khatta (garbagedumping yard) near Ganda Nala behind Ambedkar College, Kardampuri, Delhi from the area of PS Jyoti Nagar.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 34/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:25:24
+0530
96. Thus, after the occurrence of the accident in question and shifting of the injured into the offending vehicle which happened on 16.01.2012 around 08:30 pm till the recovery of the dead body on 18.01.2012 around 08:13 am, there is a time gap of almost 36 hours.
97. Now, as far as the question how the victim who was put into the offending vehicle for being taken to GTB hospital, instead of reaching the GTB Hospital landed at the spot of the recovery of his dead body, is concerned, this question can be answered only by accused Mohd. Anwar, since he was the only person with whom the deceased victim was lastly seen at the time he was shifted into his vehicle.
98. However, as apparent from the record there is no such explanation offered by the accused. In fact, during his examination u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused has completely denied the factum of driving of the offending vehicle, occurrence of the accident and shifting of the injured into his van.
99. However, as already observed above that since the testimony of PW1 is reliable and trustworthy enough to reach to the finding that the deceased was lastly seen with accused Mohd. Anwar after the accident when he was shifted into his vehicle for the purpose of being taken to the hospital, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused that he is deliberately withholding such information as the same would be incriminating and unfavorable against him.
100. Be it as may, since, the last seen of the victim with accused Mohd. Anwar stands duly proved in view of the testimony of PW1, the court shall proceed with State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 35/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:25:31 +0530 the presumption that it was the accused Mohd. Anwar only who had dumped/abandoned him at the place where his dead body was recovered.
101. However, at the same time it is also required to be find out that when the victim was dumped/abandoned at the said place, whether he was still alive or had already expired much earlier.
102. Now again, since, it is the accused only who was the best person to give answer to this question, however as already noticed earlier that he has already withheld all such information and have also not taken any plea either at the time of framing of the charge or during his examination u/s 313 Cr.PC or by raising any other plea through defence evidence, an adverse inferenece has to be drawn against the accused that he is deliberately withholding such information as the same would be incriminating and unfavorable to him.
103. Hence, the court shall now again revert to the evidence of the prosecution to find answer to the above question. Since there is no witness to the effect who might have seen the accused dumping/abandoning the deceased at the spot of recovery and to prove that whether at such time the deceased was still alive or already dead, the postmortem report of the deceased Ex.PW19/A become a crucial peace of evidence to be looked into.
104. It is relevant to note here that as per the postmortem report of the deceased, following injuries were noticed on his body at the time of his postmortem examination:
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 36/49Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:25:38 +0530 External Ante-mortem Injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound of size 3 cm X 0.2 soft tissue deep present horizontally over the right parietal region of the scalp, placed 6 cm from the midline and 10cm above the right eyebrow. The margins of the wound are reddish abraded concussed.
2. Lacerated wound of size 3x0.2 cm x bone deep present over the lateral aspect of the right eyebrow in a horizontal manner, placed 6 cm from the midline and 6 cm anterior to the right ear (ending just at the tip of lateral aspect of right eyebrow) and is surrounded by a reddish abrasion of size 4x2 cm. The margins of the wound are Reddish, abraded and contused.
3. Lacerated wound of size 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm present over the medial aspect of the right ear and is cartilage deep. The margins of the wound are reddish, abraded and contused.
4. Reddish abrasion of size 1.5x1.5 cm present over the dorso-medical aspect of right forearm, placed just below the elbow joint.
5. Reddish contusion of size 12x8 cm present over the Antero-lateral aspect of the left arms, placed just below the shoulder top with underlying fracture of the humerus bone at the shaft at the junction between proximal 1/3rd and distal 2/3rd.
There is extravasation of blood into the surrounding safe tissues and muscles at the fracture site.
6. Lacerated wound of size 2x0.3 cm x bone deep present obliquely over the medial aspect of right leg, 4 cm below the knee joint with underlying fracture of both the bones of right leg and the tibial bone is seen protruding our through the wound (distal segment). On direction the fibular bone is fractured 12 cm below the knee and the tibial bone shows comminuted fracture (complex) 7 cm below the knee. There is extravasation of blood into the surrounding soft tissues and muscles at the fracture site.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 37/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:25:44
+0530
7. Multiple reddish abrasions of size ranging from 2x0.1 to 1x 0.2 cm present over the knuckles of the middle and index finger of the right hand in an area of 5x2 cm.
8. Reddish abrasion of size 2x0.8 dm present over the colonial aspect of left hand, placed 2 cm below the wrist joint.
Internal examination:
Scalp: Extravasation of blood present over the right functon-parietal region. Scull: NAD Brain: 1210 gram, patchy sub arachnoid hemorrhage present over the right facto- parieto temporal lobes and the left temporo occipital lobe pale Neck: NAD Chest:
Ris cage: R- fracture of the 2nd, 3rd 4th ribs in the mid clavicular line, 5th rib in the mid axillary line and 6th, 7th ribs ib the posterior axillary line alongwith extra vasasion of blood into the surrounding soft tissues and muscles. Left NAD Lungs: Right weight 310 gm, Left: 270 grm Hemorrhagic contusions present over the anterolateral surface of the right lung corresponding to the fractures as mentioned above pale.
Heart : 270 gram NDA Stomach : Contains semi digested food, NAD.
Intestine: Contains fluid and gases, NAD.
Liver: 1310 gram pale. A puss field abacus of size 1.5x1 cm present in the upper segment of right lobe of liver. The inferior surface of liver shows grenish State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 38/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:25:51 +0530 discoloration due to decomposition.
Spleen: 154 gram. Kidney: Right 92 gram ,left 98 gram :- Pale Urinary Bladder: Empty - NAD. Pelvis: Fracture of the pelvis has shown in the figure alongwith extra vasation
of the blood around the soft tissues and muscles.
Opinion:
Time since death: About one and a half day.
Cause of death- Shock as a result of the ante-mortem injury to the head, chest, pelvis and long bones and associated blood vessels produced by blunt force impact.
105. Thus, the postmortem report of the deceased reveals the presence of multiple injuries over all part of his body including the fracture of ribs, fibular bone, lacerated wound on the right leg, scalp, eyebrow, ear, forearm, hand etc. Further as per the report the cause of the death of deceased was shock as a result of the ante-mortem injury to the head, chest, pelvis and long bones and associated blood vessels produced by blunt force impact.
106. It is also relevant to note here that as per the postmortem report, the probable time since death was about one and half day from the time of postmortem examination of deceased which was conducted on 18.01.2012 between 02:10 PM-03:10 PM. It is also relevant to note here that as per the testimony of PW1 the injured was shifted to the offending vehicle around 08:30 PM.State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 39/49
Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:25:58 +0530
107. Thus, calculating the time/period regarding the probable death of victim i.e. one and half day, prior to the time of his postmortem examination, it can be easily inferred that the death of the deceased might have occurred around 1:00 AM-02:00 AM of 17.01.2012.
108. However, in the instance case the accident took place on 16.01.2012 at about 08:15-08:20 PM and injured was shifted into the vehicle of accused around 08:30 PM. Thus, going by the observation of the medical examiner who prepared the postmortem report, the deceased was very much alive till 01:00 AM to 02:00 AM of 17.01.2012.
109. As such, since the admitted position that the GTB Hospital was only about 10-11 kms away from the place of accident, the victim would have easily reached there within 45 to 60 minutes, i.e, by 9:15- 09:30 pm.
110. Thus, it can be easily presumed that the victim was still alive after he was put in the offending vehicle and there was all probability of him being admitted him in the GTB or any other nearby hospital within 30 to 60 minutes.
111. As such, since accused Mohd Anwar had all the opportunities to drop the injured at GTB hospital within a time span of 45-60 minutes, it cannot be said that the deceased had already expired and only a dead body of the victim was dumped/abandoned at the place of its recovery, i.e, Kura Khatta ( garbage dumping yard) near the wall, behind Dr. Ambedkar college, Kardampuri, Delhi which was also situated just at a distance of about 04-05 km from the spot of accident and on the same road which after some distance leads towards GTB Hospital.State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 40/49
Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:26:03 +0530
112. Apparently, the deceased was still alive around till 01:00-02:00 am of 17.01.2012 and the accused was also having sufficient time to drop him at the hospital.
113. Further it is also not the case of the accused that he was prevented by any other factor or circumstances beyond his control from dropping the injured at the hospital. Neither there is any plea of breaking down of the offending vehicle nor any other plea for such failure on his part. The accused is in fact completely silent on this aspect and expect denying has not raised any plea at all.
114. Further, though as per the post mortem report the cause of death of the injured was shock as a result of the ante-mortem injury to the head, chest, pelvi and associated blood vessels produced by blunt force impact, however, the nature of injuries also per se do not reveal that they were so serious or life threatening that the injured might have died even on his way to the hospital. Moreover, no such plea has also been raised by the accused and any possibility of the same also already stands ruled out in view of the post mortem report Ex.PW19/A.
115. It is relevant to note here that one ambiguity which had crept in the version of PW1 regarding the status of the injured being alive or not during his cross-
examination on account of typographical error was also argued by the Ld. Counsel to contend that the injured had already died while being put into the offending vehicle and therefore, offence under sec.302 or 304 IPC are not attracted in the present case.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 41/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:26:09
+0530
116. It is also relevant to note here that though in order to obtain necessary clarity on this aspect, PW1 was also recalled by the court under sec.311 Cr.P.C, however, since PW1 had already expired, his further examination on this aspect could not be conducted.
117. However, despite such non-examination, the court still finds that there is no merit in the abovesaid argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel as the collective reading of the entire testimony of PW1 as well as judicial record particularly his police compliant Ex.PW1/A, sufficiently reveals that neither in his police complaint nor while deposing in the court at any stage, PW1 mentioned/deposed that when the vitim was being put into the offending vehicle he was already dead.
118. In fact the very suggestion put to PW1 during his cross-examination which was " It is wrong to suggest that when the injured was made to sit in the Maruti Van, he was alive", itself reveals that the suggestion put to the witness was in fact to claim that the injured was not alive and only due to typographical error while noting the answer of PW1 to that suggestion word 'not' was not typed in between "
he was alive". Moreover, since the postmortem report also sufficiently makes it clear that the injured was still alive till 01:00-02:00 am of 17.01.2012, no doubt remains on status of the injured being alive at the time when he was put into the offending for being taken to the hospital.
119. Now proceeding further it is also required to be seen whether the prosecution has also been able to prove that at the time of dumping of the injured, accused Mohd Abbas Ali was also playing any active role and equally assisting his co-
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 42/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:26:15
+0530
accused so to be liable for any criminal culpability of his acts.
120. However, to find answer to the said question when the court goes through the evidence of the prosecution, it finds that the prosecution has completely failed to discharges its onus to prove the said facts and any involvement of accused Mohd. Abbas Ali behind any of the alleged act. It is seen that in the present case the only incriminating evidence available on record against accused Mohd. Abbas Ali is his disclosure statement, the factum of recovery of the offending vehicle from outside of his house, the alleged purchase of the offending vehicle from earlier owner and the CDR record relating to his mobile phone number Mark PW21/E. However, the entire alleged incriminating evidence available on record against the accused Abbas Ali can not be said to sufficient and reliable evidence so as to prove that the said accused had actually assisted the main accused in dumping of the deceased at the spot of his recovery or in erasing/destructing the evidence relating to accident and presence of the injured in the offending vehicle.
121. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the factum of dumping of the deceased at the place of it recovery. Further there is also no witness of the fact who might have seen accused Abbas Ali present with main accused on the date of incident or while they allegedly cleaned or washed the vehicle post the incident. Similarly the alleged CDR record also does does not per se prove that the alleged conversation between both the accused over phone was only in relation to the accident and for planning to dump the injured and clean the evidence of accident. Thus, as such the entire alleged incriminating evidence available on record does not prove anything against accused Abbas Ali nor links him to the alleged incidents/offences State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 43/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:26:22 +0530
122. Now, the next most important question which is left to be decided is that what culpability of the accused Mohd. Anwar is made out for dumping the injured at place of recovery while he was still alive and receipt of immediate medical aid would have easily saved his life.
123. As already observed in the preceding paras of this judgment the dead body of the deceased was found out by the police official of PS Jyoti Nagar from near/behind the wall of Kura Khatta (garbage dumping yard) behind Dr. Ambedkar College, Kardampuri, Delhi. Further, as also already observed the accused also had ample time to drop and get the victim admitted at the hospital prior to his death. It is also not in dispute that the victim was aged above 50 years on the day of accident and it was also a season of peak winter as incident took place on 16.01.2012. The testimony of PW1 as well as the ante-mortem injuries reported on the dead body of the deceased as per post mortem report Ex.PW19/A also reveals that the injured had received significant and substantial injuries due to the accident and he was in the need of immediate medical aid. Further, the time since death of the deceased also reveals that he must have been alive till 01:00- 02:00 am of 17.01.2012. However, despite this, the fact that the deceased victim did not get any help from anyone after he was thrown at near/behind the wall of a garbage dumping yard, the same itself reveals that the place where the deceased was thrown was deliberately so chosen by the accused and with such intention and knowledge that under no circumstances, the injured can be noticed by anyone and he does not get the attention of anyone so as to be able to get any medical aid for his recovery.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 44/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:26:28
+0530
124. The critical condition of the injured at the accident is well apparent not only from the injuries shown to be sustained by him as per his post mortem report Ex.PW19/A but also from the fact that the injured had expired just few hours after the accident for want of medical aid. Indisputably, the adverse weather conditions may also have aggravated the process.
125. It is also a very relevant fact that if the accused was actually just intending to dump/abandon the injure in order to simply escape the liability of causing the accident, he could have easily abandon him at any other place and run away with his vehicle. However, the fact that he deliberately chose such an isolated place that too a dumping yard where no one would normally like to go and also knowing it very well that it was night time and peak winter season, the intention on the part of the accused that he only wanted to cause death of the injured by dumping him at such place is writ large.
126. Further, the manner in which the accused left the injured at the spot where ultimately his dead body was recovered despite knowing his critical condition and also knowing it very well that depriving the injured from receiving immediate medical aid shall in all probabilities result into his death, however, he still dumped him there without any excuse for incurring the risk of his death, the required knowledge on his part as laid down under clause four of Sec.300 IPC also sufficiently stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
127. As far as the contentions raised by the Ld. Defence counsel for accused Mohd. Anwar are concerned, the same also lacks any merits.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 45/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:26:35
+0530
128. The contention that since the transfer of legal ownership of the offending vehicle in the name of accused Abbas Ali and employment of accused Mohd Anwar as his driver is not proved and therefore, the prosecution has failed to link the accused Mohd. Anwar with the offending vehicle in question as well as the entire incident, the same is completely immaterial since the identity of the offending vehicle and accused Mohd Anwar as driver of the said vehicle on the date of incident sufficiently stands proved in view of testimony of PW1.
129. Further, since the physical transfer and handing over of the vehicle to the custody of accused Abbas Ali also stands sufficiently proved through the oral testimony of PW5, PW7 and PW8, the mere non transfer of legal ownership of the vehicle in the name of accused Abbas Ali is also completely non- fatal to the case of prosecution.
130. Likewise, the non-proving of employment of accused Mohd Anwar as driver of accused Abbas Ali also does not affect the merits of the case of the prosecution when his identity as driver of the vehicle on the day of accident stands sufficiently established through the testimony of PW1.
131. For the same reason since the identity of the offending vehicle sufficiently stands proved in view of the testimony of PW1 as well as mechanical inspection report Ex.PW16/A, mere non-sending of the broken piece of the front glass of the van to FSL also does not affect the merits of the case of prosecution.
132. The contention regarding alleged defects in the notices served to PW5, PW7 State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 46/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:26:43 +0530 and PW8 u/sec.133 MV Act. is also liable to be completely discarded as the same are also apparently only a clerical mistake.
133. Likewise the court also does not find any merits and substance in the other contention raised by the Ld. Defence counsel relating to alleged defects in site plan and other proceeding relating to investigation conducted during the course of investigation as they also do not have any bearing on the merits of the case and can not be said to be material discrepancies so as to cast any shadow of doubt over the case of the prosecution. The contention that dumping of an injured is simply an immoral act also lacks serious merits vis-a-vis facts of the case in hand.
134. Similarly, the alleged delay in recording of the statement of PW1 also stands sufficiently explained in the testimony of PW1, PW9 and PW20. Moreover, even otherwise , the same can not be said be per se motivated or leading to any manipulation when admittedly PW1 had no reason or motive to falsely implicate/identify the accused.
135. Likewise the mere fact the PW1 was not found present at the spot when PW20 and PW9 had reached there and PW20 also did not immediately contact PW1 after reaching at the spot also does not per se affect the credibility of the version of PW1 when it has been specifically deposed by PW1 that after the accident and shifting the injured into the van, he had also left for his house. Further, both PW20 and PW9 have also duly explained that after reaching at the spot when they did not find anybody, they had visited different hospital to find a clue regarding the admission of any injured and that the PCR call was also kept pending and thereafter on the next morning the complainant/PW1 was also duly State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 47/49 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:26:50 +0530 contacted and his statement in relation to the accident was also recorded by PW20. Further, the defence has also not been able to lead any evidence to prove that investigation against accused was actually vindictive .
136. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved it beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Mohd. Anwar had dumped/abandoned the deceased victim at the place of recovery of his dead body in injured condition while he was being alive in order to conceal/destruct the evidence of accident which had took place on 16.01.2012 at the spot of accident while he was driving the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-3CT-1413 and that the dumping of the deceased victim was with the intention to cause his death as well as with the knowledge that dumping and abandoning him in such injured condition at such an isolated place will prevent him from being receiving any attention and immediate medical aid and that doing so was so imminently dangerous that in all probabilities it will cause his death, however, he still committed that act and incurred the risk of his death without any excuse.
137. The accused Mohd. Anwar accordingly stands convicted for commission of offences charged under u/sec. 302/201 IPC. However, he stands acquitted for all the other offences u/sec. 304/279/337/338 IPC. Further, since the prosecution has failed to any role/involvement of accused Abbas Ali in any of the alleged offence, he stands acquitted for all the alleged offences u/sec. 302/304/201 IPC
138. Copy of this judgment be given to both the sides free of cost.
State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 48/49
Digitally
signed by
BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.12.26
17:26:57
+0530
139. The convict Mohd. Anwar shall be heard separately on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed by BALWINDER on 26.12.2025 BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.26 17:27:04 +0530 (BALWINDER SINGH) ASJ (FTC)/North-East/KKD Courts/Delhi/26.12.2025 It is certified that this Judgment contains 49 pages and each page has been signed by undersigned.
Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.12.26 17:27:10 +0530 (BALWINDER SINGH) ASJ (FTC)/North-East/KKD Courts/Delhi/26.12.2025 State vs. Mohd. Abbas Ali & Arns FIR No. 22/2012 Page No. 49/49